💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (August Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Type: Schemes

  • Minister in RS: Potential conflict of interest in RDI Fund disbursement

    Why in the News

    The Science and Technology Minister told the Rajya Sabha (RS) on 30 July that seven members of a fund’s investment committee held personal stakes in at least 15 companies later selected to receive money from the Research, Development and Innovation (RDI) Fund. The disclosure shows the fund’s own safeguard against conflict of interest existed only on paper, since the government could not confirm whether the affected members recused themselves from those decisions.

    How does the RDI Fund disburse money?

    1. Purpose: The RDI Fund is a Rs 1 lakh crore corpus created by the Centre last year to provide long term, low cost financing to the private sector for research, development and innovation, particularly in high priority areas such as deep tech.
    2. Channel: The money is not disbursed directly. It flows through designated Second Level Fund Managers (SLFMs), organisations empowered to invest in private companies through equity, debt or a mix of both.
    3. Current SLFMs: The Technology Development Board (TDB), under the Department of Science and Technology, and the Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Council, under the Department of Biotechnology, are currently functioning as SLFMs.
    4. Vetting step: Every SLFM must maintain an investment committee. The committee assesses and vets investment proposals from private companies before any RDI Fund disbursement is approved.

    What did the disclosure in Parliament reveal?

    1. Scale: Seven members of the TDB’s investment committee were named as holding personal investments in at least 15 entities separately selected to receive RDI Fund money.
    2. Policy on paper: The Minister said the TDB has a conflict of interest policy for investment committee members but did not specify its content or confirm whether it was followed in these cases.
    3. Guideline language: The RDI scheme’s implementation guidelines require the investment panel to be constituted in a way that avoids potential conflicts of interest, and require SLFMs to ensure no conflict arises in the choice of projects.
    4. Acknowledged risk: The guidelines themselves flag the likelihood of domain experts on an investment committee also being investors in the ideas and companies they assess.
    5. Unanswered question: The government’s response did not clarify whether the named members took part in decisions selecting companies they had invested in, or whether they recused themselves.

    Why does a stated conflict of interest policy fail to reassure?

    1. Undisclosed content: A policy whose text and enforcement record are not placed in the public domain cannot be verified by Parliament or the public.
    2. Structural design flaw: Recruiting domain experts, who by definition work in the same sector as the startups being funded, builds the possibility of conflict into the investment committee’s composition itself.
    3. Reactive disclosure: The information became public only because a Rajya Sabha member specifically asked for it, not because the government or the TDB disclosed the stakes on its own.
    4. No recusal record: Without a public record of recusal, a conflict of interest policy functions as a stated intention rather than an enforced rule.

    What are the challenges to conflict of interest management in the RDI Fund?

    1. No central registry: With disbursal spread across multiple SLFMs, there is no single public registry tracking investment committee members’ personal stakes across all participating institutions.
    2. Small expert pool: Deep tech and frontier research fields draw on a narrow pool of domain experts, which raises the odds that any given panel will include stakeholders in the sector it is vetting.
    3. Scale of exposure: As the RDI Fund’s Rs 1 lakh crore corpus is progressively deployed, an unaddressed conflict of interest risks recurring at a far larger scale than the 15 companies disclosed so far.
    4. Weak parliamentary oversight: Parliament’s scrutiny in this case was confined to a written question and answer, without an independent audit of the investment committee’s decisions.
    5. Precedent risk: Confidence in the fund’s neutrality among companies that were not selected depends on conflicts being addressed transparently, not merely acknowledged.

    Conclusion

    The RDI Fund’s design assumed that a stated conflict of interest policy and a warning in its guidelines would keep evaluators and beneficiaries separate. The Rajya Sabha disclosure shows that assumption has already failed in at least 15 cases, and the government has not clarified whether any safeguard was actually applied. What remains unresolved is whether recusal was followed in practice, a question Parliament has not yet forced the government to answer.

    Back2Basics:

    RDI Fund

    1. Approved by the Union Cabinet in 2025 as a Rs 1 lakh crore corpus to finance private sector research, development and innovation, especially in strategic and sunrise sectors.
    2. Anchored under the Department of Science and Technology, with the Anusandhan National Research Foundation providing overall research policy coordination.
    3. Designed to provide long term, low cost financing, distinct from grant based research funding.
    4. Disbursed through Second Level Fund Managers such as the Technology Development Board and the Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Council, each running its own investment committee.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2018] What is meant by conflict of interest? Illustrate with examples, the difference between the actual and potential conflicts of interest.

    Linkage: The PYQ examines the concept of conflict of interest in public decision-making and governance. The article highlights potential conflicts in the RDI Fund’s investment process and the importance of transparency, disclosure, and recusal.

  • IRDAI Unveils Reforms to Boost Insurance Sector and Improve Policyholder Protection

    Why in the News?

    The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) has approved a package of regulatory reforms covering investment norms, capital structure, policyholder protection and intermediary accountability. The reform bundle operationalises the Sabka Bima Sabki Raksha Act, 2025, which raised the foreign investment ceiling in insurers from 74% to 100%. It tests whether liberalisation and protection can be built in parallel rather than protection following liberalisation with a lag.

    Why has IRDAI introduced this reform package now?

    1. Legislative trigger: The Sabka Bima Sabki Raksha (Amendment of Insurance Laws) Act, 2025 amended insurance laws and raised the foreign investment ceiling in insurers to 100%, up from 74%.
    2. Implementation gap: The higher FDI ceiling needed a regulatory framework for capital infusion, corporate restructuring and share transfer to become operational.
    3. Statutory mandate: The SBSR Act inserted Section 16A into the IRDA Act, 1999. This created the legal basis for the Policyholders’ Education and Protection Fund, which needed dedicated regulations to function.
    4. Sequencing choice: The IRDAI board cleared amendments to five sets of regulations in a single meeting. Capital reform and protection reform were treated as one package, not as separate tracks.

    What liberalisation has been extended to insurers?

    1. Investment norms: Amendments to the actuarial, finance and investment regulations give insurers greater flexibility in deploying funds.
    2. Capital structure: Amended registration and capital structure regulations create a facilitative framework for capital infusion.
    3. Corporate restructuring: The same regulations streamline provisions for amalgamation of insurers.
    4. Share transfer: Procedures governing transfer of shares have been simplified. This eases entry and exit for investors.
    5. Actuarial oversight: The amendments strengthen actuarial and financial governance standards even as operational flexibility increases.

    How has the reform package sought to institutionalise policyholder protection?

    1. Statutory fund: The Policyholders’ Education and Protection Fund Regulations, 2026 operationalise the PEPF created under Section 16A of the IRDA Act, 1999.
    2. Awareness mandate: The fund is tasked with promoting insurance awareness and literacy.
    3. Grievance redressal: The regulations direct the fund to strengthen mechanisms for resolving policyholder grievances.
    4. Unclaimed amounts: The fund is required to trace and recover unclaimed insurance amounts on behalf of policyholders and beneficiaries.
    5. Technology mandate: The fund is expected to use technology to improve policyholder-facing services.

    How does the intermediary and enforcement architecture fix accountability gaps in distribution?

    1. Salesperson tagging: Every insurance proposal, policy and certificate of insurance must now carry the identity of the authorised salesperson who sold it.
    2. Traceability: Tagging makes individual accountability for mis-selling traceable at the point of sale.
    3. Registration reform: Intermediaries move from periodic renewal to perpetual registration, backed by an annual fee.
    4. Compliance alignment: The revised intermediary framework aligns with the SBSR Act and with Foreign Investment Rules.
    5. Penalty framework: The IRDAI (Manner and Procedure for Imposition of Penalties) Regulations, 2026 lay down a structured process of show-cause notices and reasoned orders under the Insurance Act, 1938 and the IRDAI Act, 1999.

    Can capital liberalisation and policyholder protection be pursued at the same pace, or does one inherently lag the other?

    1. Structural pairing: IRDAI bundled capital-side liberalisation with protection-side regulation in the same board meeting. The two are treated as inseparable, not sequential.
    2. Underlying risk: Liberalised investment norms and eased capital infusion widen the pool of entities and products in the market. This same expansion has historically outpaced grievance redressal capacity.
    3. Accountability lag: Salesperson tagging and the penalty framework are enforcement tools. Both depend on detection and adjudication capacity, which typically builds slower than capital inflow.
    4. Fund versus enforcement: The PEPF is an awareness and recovery mechanism, not a supervisory one. It does not by itself catch mis-selling before it occurs.
    5. Open question: Whether accountability infrastructure can scale at the same rate as the capital base, once 100% FDI is fully absorbed, remains untested.

    What do early market signals suggest about the credibility of this dual-track reform?

    1. FDI uptake: Two insurers, one life and one general, have already raised foreign shareholding beyond the earlier 74% ceiling.
    2. New entry: ProTec General Insurance Ltd received a Certificate of Registration, the fourth new registration of calendar year 2026.
    3. Composition of entry: The four 2026 registrations span two general insurers, one health insurer and one reinsurer. This indicates diversified rather than concentrated investor interest.
    4. Regulator’s reading: IRDAI has framed the FDI uptake as a signal of investor confidence and of India’s attractiveness as a long-term investment destination.
    5. Unresolved test: Investor confidence confirms the liberalisation track is working. It does not yet confirm the protection track, since the PEPF and the penalty framework are too new to have generated measurable outcomes.

    Conclusion

    IRDAI’s reform package treats capital liberalisation and policyholder protection as a single, simultaneous exercise rather than a sequence, matching the SBSR Act’s 100% FDI opening with a statutory protection fund, salesperson-level traceability and a codified penalty process. Early investor response confirms the liberalisation track is working. Whether the protection track can scale at the same speed as capital inflow, particularly by detecting mis-selling before it happens rather than compensating for it afterward, is not yet tested.

    Back2Basics:

    Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI)

    1. Governing Act: IRDAI is governed by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999, along with the Insurance Act, 1938 and the General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972.
    2. Jurisdiction: IRDAI performs both economic regulation (tariffs, solvency margins) and technical regulation (reserving norms, actuarial standards) for insurers, an integrated single-regulator model.
    3. Origin: IRDAI was established on the recommendation of the R.N. Malhotra Committee on comprehensive reforms of the insurance sector, which predates IRDAI’s own creation.
    4. Grievance route: The Insurance Ombudsman handles policyholder disputes; its award is binding on the insurer but not the policyholder, who can still approach a Consumer Commission.
    5. Appellate route: Appeals against IRDAI orders lie before the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT).

    What is the Sabka Bima Sabki Raksha (Amendment of Insurance Laws) Act, 2025?

    1. What it is: The Sabka Bima Sabki Raksha (Amendment of Insurance Laws) Act, 2025 (SBSR Act) is the legislative vehicle through which Parliament amended India’s insurance laws, including the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999.
    2. What it introduced: The SBSR Act introduced Section 16A of the IRDA Act, 1999, establishing the statutory basis for the Policyholders’ Education and Protection Fund.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2015] For achieving the desired objectives, it is necessary to ensure that the regulatory institutions remain independent and autonomous. Discuss in the light of the experiences in recent past.

    Linkage: The question asks what independence and autonomy regulatory institutions need to achieve their objectives. IRDAI’s new penalty and enforcement regulations attempt to build exactly this kind of structured, autonomous regulatory credibility.

  • PLI schemes drive ₹96,000 crore investment

    Why in the News

    The production-linked incentive scheme for large-scale electronics manufacturing (PLI-LSEM) has catalysed Rs 96,000 crore of investment in India’s mobile manufacturing ecosystem, Parliament was informed on 29 July 2026. Electronics production crossed Rs 3.11 lakh crore in FY 2025-26, and the Semicon India Programme has moved from policy announcement to actual commercial output for the first time.

    What is the PLI Scheme for Large-Scale Electronics Manufacturing (PLI-LSEM)?

    1. Launch and purpose: PLI-LSEM was launched in 2020 to boost indigenous production of mobile phones and reduce import dependence.
    2. Mechanism: The scheme pays eligible manufacturers a percentage incentive on incremental sales of India-made goods over a base year, tied to investment and production commitments.
    3. Scope expansion: The government followed it with PLI Scheme 2.0 for IT Hardware in 2023, covering laptops, tablets and servers.
    4. Semicon India Programme: A separate scheme approves fabrication and packaging projects to build domestic semiconductor manufacturing capacity.

    What does the data show about electronics manufacturing growth?

    1. Investment catalysed: PLI-LSEM has catalysed approximately Rs 96,000 crore of investment in the mobile manufacturing ecosystem.
    2. Production growth: Electronics production rose from Rs 1.32 lakh crore in FY 2024-25 to Rs 3.11 lakh crore in FY 2025-26, a year-on-year growth of 15.8%.
    3. Domestic value addition: An external evaluation study found domestic value addition (DVA) under PLI-LSEM increased to 23% in FY 2023-24.
    4. Export ranking: Smartphones, absent from India’s top 100 exported commodities in 2014, became India’s top exported individual commodity in FY 2025-26, surpassing petroleum and gems and jewellery.
    5. IT Hardware scheme: PLI Scheme 2.0 for IT Hardware has generated cumulative production of Rs 24,385.89 crore, cumulative investment of Rs 1,056.36 crore, and 5,216 direct jobs.

    What is the state of the Semicon India Programme?

    1. Projects approved: 12 projects have been approved under the Semicon India Programme, entailing a committed investment of Rs 1.64 lakh crore.
    2. Commercial production: 3 of the 12 approved projects have already started commercial production.
    3. Private follow-on investment: Semiconductor firm Marvell Technology has separately announced a $250 million investment in India, citing the country’s growing role as an engineering hub.

    Challenges to India’s PLI and semiconductor manufacturing push

    1. Import dependence on components: India’s electronics assembly still relies heavily on imported chips and displays, keeping true domestic value addition below finished-goods value.
    2. Technology gap: India’s semiconductor fabrication projects remain at trailing-edge nodes, far behind the sub-10 nanometre technology used by global leaders such as Taiwan.
    3. Fiscal cost of incentives: The PLI outlay across sectors runs into tens of thousands of crores, raising questions about cost per job created against alternative uses of the same fiscal space.
    4. Sunset risk: PLI incentives are time-bound, and companies that scale up during the incentive period face uncertainty about competitiveness once the subsidy period ends.
    5. Tariff exposure: Sharp increases in United States tariffs on electronics exports could squeeze the margins that make India-based assembly viable for global companies.

    Conclusion

    The PLI-LSEM and Semicon India Programme disclosures show incentive-linked manufacturing has moved from policy design to measurable investment and production gains, with smartphones now India’s top exported commodity. The next milestone is whether the remaining nine approved semiconductor projects reach commercial production and whether domestic value addition rises beyond assembly-level gains.

    Back2Basics:

    Production-Linked Incentive (PLI) Scheme

    1. Launch: The PLI framework was launched in 2020 across multiple sectors to boost domestic manufacturing and cut import dependence.
    2. Mechanism: The government pays selected manufacturers a financial incentive, typically 4-6% of incremental sales over a base year, contingent on investment and production commitments.
    3. Nodal ministry: The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology administers PLI-LSEM and IT Hardware; other sectors are administered by their respective ministries.
    4. Sectoral spread: PLI schemes cover 14 sectors including mobile manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, telecom equipment, textiles, food processing and semiconductors.

    The Semicon India Programme

    1. It is a national initiative backed by financial outlays and implemented through the India Semiconductor Mission to build a complete domestic semiconductor and display manufacturing ecosystem

    Financial Outlay and Phases

    1. Phase 1 (Semicon 1.0): Approved in December 2021 with an initial fiscal outlay of ₹76,000 crore to incentivize silicon fabs, display units, and packaging.
    2. Phase 2 (Semicon 2.0): Approved in July 2026 with an expanded outlay of ₹1,27,500 crore to widen the scope of domestic manufacturing and supply chains.

    Core Focus Pillars

    1. Semiconductor Fabs: Fiscal backing covering up to 50% of project costs for silicon CMOS fabrication units.
    2. ATMP/OSAT: Support for assembly, testing, marking, and packaging facilities.
    3. Design & R&D: Incentives for chip design infrastructure, raw materials, equipment, and talent development.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2025] Discuss the rationale of the Production Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme. What are its achievements? In what way can the functioning and outcomes of the scheme be improved?
    Linkage: The PYQ examines government policies to promote manufacturing, industrial growth and global competitiveness. The article evaluates how PLI-LSEM and the Semicon India Programme are strengthening electronics manufacturing, exports and domestic value addition while highlighting the remaining challenges in semiconductor self-reliance.

  • “Tigers Outside Tiger Reserves” initiative targets the 35 to 40% of India’s tigers living outside protected areas

    Why in the News

    The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change’s (MoEFCC) new “Tigers Outside Tiger Reserves” (TOTR) initiative addresses the 35 to 40% of India’s tiger population living outside formally protected areas. It is built on two pillars, conflict reduction and community coexistence, across 40 forest divisions in nine states.

    Pillars of the Tigers Outside Tiger Reserves (TOTR) initiative

    1. Conflict reduction: The first pillar focuses on reducing human-tiger conflict incidents in forest divisions where tigers range outside the boundaries of formally notified reserves.
    2. Community coexistence: The second pillar builds mechanisms for local communities to coexist with tigers present in shared, non-reserve landscapes, rather than treating their presence as purely a conservation enforcement problem.
    3. Coverage: The initiative spans 40 forest divisions across nine states, reflecting the geographic spread of India’s tiger population beyond reserve boundaries.

    Why does India need a policy specifically for tigers outside reserves?

    1. Population share at stake: With 35 to 40% of India’s tiger population living outside protected areas, conservation policy focused only on reserve boundaries misses a large share of the actual tiger population.
    2. Corridor dependence: Tigers outside reserves typically use forest corridors connecting reserves, and conflict in these corridors threatens the genetic connectivity between reserve populations.
    3. Land use pressure: Non-reserve forest divisions face agricultural and settlement pressure that formally protected reserves do not, making conflict management here structurally harder than inside a reserve.

    Conclusion

    1. The Tigers Outside Tiger Reserves initiative extends India’s tiger conservation focus beyond reserve boundaries to the corridors and shared landscapes where a large share of the tiger population actually lives. Its success will depend on whether conflict reduction and community coexistence measures can be sustained in areas without a reserve’s formal protection status.

    Back2Basics

    Conservation Status

    • IUCN Red List: Endangered (EN)
    • Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972: Schedule I species (highest level of legal protection).
    • CITES: Appendix I.

    Tiger Reserves in India

    • Total Tiger Reserves: 58 (under the National Tiger Conservation Authority).
    • Largest Tiger Reserve: Nagarjunsagar Srisailam Tiger Reserve (Andhra Pradesh & Telangana).
    • Smallest Tiger Reserve: Bor Tiger Reserve (Maharashtra).
    • State with the most Tiger Reserves: Madhya Pradesh (9).
    • Latest Tiger Reserve: Madhav Tiger Reserve (Madhya Pradesh), notified in 2025.

    Tiger Population

    • India’s tiger population increased from 1,411 (2006) to 3,682 (2022), reflecting the success of sustained conservation efforts under Project Tiger and landscape-based protection.
    • India is home to over 70% of the world’s wild tiger population, making it the global stronghold for tiger conservation.

    Project Tiger

    • Launched in 1973 by the Government of India to ensure a viable population of tigers in their natural habitats through habitat protection, anti-poaching measures, scientific monitoring, and community participation.

    National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA)

    • The NTCA is a statutory body established under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (through the 2006 amendment) under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
    • It formulates policies and standards for tiger conservation, oversees the management of Tiger Reserves, approves reserve notifications, and monitors implementation of Project Tiger across the country.

  • India’s Rs 40,000 crore mine closure corpus opens a circular economy opportunity, but needs inter ministry coordination

    Why in the News

    India has accumulated a Rs 40,000 crore mine closure corpus, alongside the 2025 Mine Closure Guidelines, opening opportunities for circular economy activity and eco-tourism at exhausted mine sites. Realising this potential requires coordination across the Coal, Mines and Environment Ministries, a structure that does not currently exist.

    What does the Mine Closure Guidelines framework provide for?

    1. Corpus purpose: The Rs 40,000 crore corpus is built from contributions mining companies make toward the eventual environmental restoration of a mine site.
    2. Progressive closure: The 2025 guidelines push miners toward progressive closure, restoring parts of a mine as operations wind down rather than waiting until full exhaustion.
    3. Repurposing scope: Restored sites can potentially host circular economy activity, such as reprocessing mine waste, or be converted into eco-tourism destinations.

    Why does inter ministry coordination remain the binding constraint?

    1. Divided jurisdiction: Mine closure decisions touch the Ministry of Coal, the Ministry of Mines, and the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, each with separate approval processes.
    2. No single owner: No single ministry currently holds end to end responsibility for converting a closed mine site into a productive circular economy or tourism asset.
    3. Execution gap: The problem is not the availability of funds in the corpus, but the absence of an institutional mechanism to direct that money toward a repurposing plan across ministries.

    Conclusion

    The mine closure corpus and the 2025 guidelines create the financial and regulatory basis for circular economy and eco-tourism use of closed mine sites. Whether that potential is realised depends on whether the Coal, Mines and Environment Ministries build a coordinated execution mechanism, not on the size of the corpus itself.

    1. Cabinet’s National Investment Policy for Urea (NIPU) 2026

      Why in the News?

      The Union Cabinet has approved the National Investment Policy for Urea (NIPU) 2026, restructuring the return framework for urea manufacturers to attract fresh investment in domestic capacity. This comes against an annual urea subsidy bill of Rs 1,42,175.74 crore for 2025-26.

        What are the Pillars of the National Investment Policy for Urea (NIPU) 2026?

        1. Aim: The policy aims to encourage the establishment of new gas-based urea manufacturing plants across the country to reduce dependence on imports and bridge the gap between domestic production and demand.
        2. The National Investment Policy for Urea-2026 (NIPU-2026) rests on three core pillars: cost separation, assured returns, and foreign exchange risk mitigation.
        3. Return band: The policy sets a Return on Equity (ROE) band of 12 to 16 percent for new urea manufacturing investment.
        4. Cost restructuring: It restructures how production costs are calculated and reimbursed to manufacturers.
        5. Subsidy delivery: Distribution continues through Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT), credited after retailers confirm sale to farmers.
        6. Self-reliance objective: The stated goal is to reduce India’s dependence on imported urea by making domestic capacity commercially viable.

        Why does urea self-reliance remain unresolved despite this policy?

        1. Subsidy scale: The current annual subsidy bill of Rs 1,42,175.74 crore reflects the price gap between controlled retail urea prices and actual production cost.
        2. Investment history: Previous urea policy revisions have not sufficiently attracted new private investment in domestic plants.
        3. Import dependence: India continues to import a share of its urea requirement despite decades of subsidy support to domestic units.
        4. Farmer price link: Retail urea prices remain fixed for farmers regardless of the ROE band offered to manufacturers.

        Conclusion

        The National Investment Policy for Urea 2026 targets manufacturer incentives rather than farm gate prices, betting that better returns on investment will draw the domestic capacity that decades of subsidy alone did not. Whether the 12 to 16 percent ROE band is sufficient to shift investment decisions remains to be tested against actual capacity additions.

        Value Addition:

        Urea Subsidy Scheme:

        Urea fertiliser subsidy in India is a central government scheme where the state fixes a low Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of ₹242 per 45-kg bag for farmers, while the government pays the remaining high production or import cost directly to manufacturers.

        Scheme Mechanics

        1. Fixed MRP: Farmers pay a low, controlled price of ₹242 per 45-kg bag (excluding taxes and neem-coating charges).
        2. Government Payout: The center pays the difference between the actual high cost of making or importing urea and the low selling price directly to the factory owners.
        3. Control: The Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers manages the policy and distribution across the country.

        PYQ Relevance

        [UPSC 2023] What are the direct and indirect subsidies provided to farm sector in India? Discuss the issues raised by the World Trade Organization (WTO) in relation to agricultural subsidies.

        Linkage: The PYQ examines India’s fertiliser subsidy regime and related WTO concerns. NIPU 2026 reforms urea subsidies to boost domestic production while retaining farmer subsidies, linking directly to agricultural subsidy debates.

        1. Maritime sector posts remarkable growth

          Why in News?

          An analysis of India’s port sector found capacity utilisation at about 60%, against a global benchmark of 70%, as Sagarmala 2.0 continues to expand port linked infrastructure.

          Key Highlights

          1. Port capacity utilisation stands at roughly 60%, below the 70% global benchmark.
          2. Sagarmala 2.0 is the next phase of the Sagarmala Programme, aligned with the Maritime Amrit Kaal Vision (MAKV) 2047.
          3. MAKV 2047 targets positioning India as a global maritime innovation hub.

          Sagarmala Programme

          • Launched in 2015 by the Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways.
          • Vision: Port-led development to accelerate economic growth and reduce logistics costs.
          • Four key pillars:
            • Port modernisation and new port development
            • Port connectivity enhancement
            • Port-led industrialisation
            • Coastal community development

          [2026] Consider the following statements with reference to the Sagarmala Programme of the Government of India:

          I. The Sagarmala Programme seeks to achieve port led economic growth through cost effective and sustainable coastal infrastructure.

          II. The success of the Sagarmala Programme is reflected in significant growth in coastal and inland waterway shipping, along with improved global port rankings.

          III. Sagarmala 2.0 aims to position India as a global maritime innovation hub aligned with Atmanirbhar Bharat and Viksit Bharat 2047 visions.

          Which of the following relationships among the above statements is/are correct?

          (a) 1 only

          (b) 1 and 2

          (c) 2 and 3

          (d) 3 only

        2. Govt. brings ₹3,030-cr. plan to set up three chemical parks

          Why in News?

          The Union Cabinet approved the BHAVYA-Rasayan Scheme to establish three chemical parks, aiming to boost domestic chemical manufacturing and attract private investment.

          Key Highlights

          • Cabinet approved the Bharat Audyogik Vikas Yojana Rasayan (BHAVYA-Rasayan).
          • Three chemical parks of at least 2,000 acres each.
          • Total outlay: ₹3,030 crore.
          • Each park is expected to attract ₹20,000 crore to ₹50,000 crore in private investment.
          • Parks will provide common infrastructure such as CETPs, hazardous waste management, utilities, and logistics.

          Value Addition

          • India is the 6th largest chemical producer globally and 3rd largest in Asia.
          • The sector contributes about 7% of GDP, 14% of industrial output, and 11% of merchandise exports.
          • Chemical parks promote cluster-based manufacturing, reduce logistics costs, improve environmental compliance, and enhance export competitiveness.

          BHAVYA-Rasayan Scheme

          • Union Government scheme approved in July 2026.
          • Outlay: ₹3,030 crore.
          • Objective: Develop integrated chemical manufacturing hubs, attract investment, reduce import dependence, and strengthen Make in India.

          PYQ (2023, GS3, 10 Marks) Faster economic growth requires increased share of the manufacturing sector in GDP, particularly of MSMEs. Comment on the present policies of the Government in this regard.

          [2020] With reference to the international trade of India at present, which of the following statements is/are correct?

          1.India’s merchandise exports are less than its merchandise imports.
          2.India’s imports of iron and steel, chemicals, fertilisers and machinery have decreased in recent years.
          3.India’s exports of services are more than its imports of services.
          4.India suffers from an overall trade/current account deficit.
          Select the correct answer using the code given below:
          a) 1 and 2 only
          b) 2 and 4 only
          c) 3 only
          d) 1, 3 and 4 only

        3. PM SVANidhi Street Food Hub Initiative

          Why in News?

          Lakhanpur (Kathua, Jammu & Kashmir) has been selected among the first towns approved under the PM SVANidhi Street Food Hub Initiative.

          Key Highlights

          • Lakhanpur, the gateway to Jammu & Kashmir, will develop a Street Food Hub across two clusters covering 1,754.25 sq. m.
          • Will promote Dogra cuisine and improve facilities for pilgrims, tourists, and local vendors.
          • The project aims to transform Lakhanpur into a culinary tourism destination.

          About the Initiative

          • Implemented by the Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs (MoHUA) under PM SVANidhi.
          • Plans to establish up to 50 Street Food Hubs across India.
          • Focuses on organized, hygienic food streets, tourism promotion, and sustainable livelihoods.
          • Preference to towns with:
            • Tourism and heritage significance.
            • Unique local cuisine.
            • Convergence with Swadesh Darshan, PRASHAD, UNESCO World Heritage Sites, and UNESCO Creative Cities.

          Financial Support

          • ₹4 crore per project: 30% first instalment, 50% second instalment, and 20% after completion
          • Additional ₹25 lakh incentive for cities with a notified Street Vending Plan.

          PM SVANidhi

          • Launched: 2020, Ministry: MoHUA
          • Objective: Provide collateral-free working capital loans to street vendors and promote financial inclusion through interest subsidy and digital payments.

          Significance

          • Enhances livelihoods of street vendors.
          • Promotes local cuisine and tourism.
          • Improves food hygiene and visitor experience.

          [2015] Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana has been launched for

          [A] providing housing loan to poor people at cheaper interest rates

          [B] Promoting women’s Self-Help Groups in backward areas

          [C] promoting financial inclusion in the country

          [D] providing financial help to marginalised communities

        4. Why is the centre revising the NFSA 

          Why in the News?

          The Union Food and Public Distribution Department has published a draft amendment to the National Food Security Act (NFSA), 2013 converting the Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) entitlement from a household-based to a per-capita formula. Tamil Nadu and Kerala have objected, arguing the change will cut monthly foodgrain allocations for smaller households even though it is framed as an equity correction. The dispute revives a food-politics fault line between the Centre and these two States that traces back to the NFSA’s 2013 enactment.

          What has the Centre proposed, and what does it claim to fix?

          1. Current rule: Every Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) household receives 35 kg of foodgrains per month, regardless of household size.
          2. Proposed rule: Each person in an AAY household is entitled to 7 kg per month, subject to a ceiling of 35 kg per household.
          3. Legal provision amended: The first provision to Section 3(1) of the NFSA, which governs the right to subsidised foodgrains for eligible households.
          4. Stated rationale: The F&PD Department says the household-based system causes intra-category inequity. Smaller households get a higher per-capita share. Larger households get a lower per-capita share that can fall below what priority households receive.
          5. Stated objective: The amendment aims to make allocation more rational and align entitlements with nutritional norms.
          6. Consultation window: Public comments were invited till July 13, 2026.
          7. Gap in the amendment: The draft does not address inclusion of ineligible persons as beneficiaries. This problem remains a State-level issue.

          Why have Tamil Nadu and Kerala historically treated food policy as high-stakes politics?

          1. Kerala’s PDS legacy: Kerala traces informal food distribution mechanisms to the erstwhile princely State of Travancore and launched a formal Public Distribution System (PDS) in 1962, three years before the Food Corporation of India (FCI) was established.
          2. Tamil Nadu’s political precedent: Incumbent governments lost power in 1952 and 1967 over failure to manage rice shortages, making rice policy a lasting political sensitivity.
          3. Kerala’s resistance to the 2013 NFSA: The Congress-led UDF government, despite the Congress-led UPA pushing the law at the Centre, resisted implementation. It argued the law would drop a large number of poor families and impose a heavy financial burden on the State.
          4. Delayed Kerala rollout: Chief Minister Oommen Chandy committed to enforcing the NFSA, but the formal decision was taken only under his successor, Pinarayi Vijayan.
          5. Tamil Nadu’s universal rice policy: Chief Minister Jayalalithaa opposed the NFSA after her government began distributing free rice to all ration cardholders in 2011, regardless of economic status.
          6. Concession extracted in 2013: Tamil Nadu secured a Central guarantee that its then-existing allocation levels would be legally protected under the NFSA.
          7. Delayed adoption: Both southern States joined the rest of the country in implementing the NFSA only in November 2016.

          Why does a per-capita formula built on a household ceiling disadvantage southern States?

          1. Mechanical effect of the formula: A household with fewer than five members receives less than 35 kg under the per-capita rule, since 7 kg multiplied by fewer than five persons falls short of the existing ceiling.
          2. Kerala’s structural exposure: Kerala’s Food Minister has argued that States characterised by nuclear families will lose out, since Kerala took the position in 2013 that AAY cardholders deserved “special consideration,” a stance it maintains.
          3. Tamil Nadu’s quantified loss: The State’s monthly allocation is projected to fall from 65,261 tonnes to 42,040 tonnes under the new formula.
          4. Scale of exposure in Tamil Nadu: Of 18.64 lakh AAY households, 15.75 lakh have fewer than five members, covering 58.51 lakh of the State’s 69.27 lakh AAY beneficiaries.
          5. Non-substitutability argument: Rice is a staple across all three daily meals for AAY cardholders and cannot be replaced with market purchases without significant out-of-pocket cost.
          6. North-South divide argument: Right to Food Campaign functionary Anuradha Talwar has argued that northern States, with larger average family sizes, will receive higher allocations under the new formula while southern States lose out.
          7. South’s collective stake: The five southern States and Puducherry together hold 52.51 lakh of India’s 250 lakh AAY household ceiling, about one-fifth of the national total, making the region’s exposure to the formula change substantial in absolute terms.

          What is the way forward, and does it resolve the underlying tension?

          1. Process concern: A change of this scale should have been subjected to wider public scrutiny before a consensus was sought, according to food policy commentary cited in the report.
          2. Middle-path proposal: Tamil Nadu Progressive Consumer Centre president T. Sadagopan has suggested a flat allocation of 30 kg per household, irrespective of family size, as a compromise.
          3. Fiscal rationale for the middle path: A flat 30 kg allocation would still let the Union government reduce its overall subsidy bill compared to the current 35 kg ceiling.
          4. Implementation context: Current off-take and distribution data for the financial year up to May 2026 show uneven utilisation across southern States relative to their allocations, indicating that formula design alone will not resolve execution gaps in the PDS chain.
          5. Unresolved gap: Neither the Centre’s draft nor the proposed middle path addresses the separate, State-level problem of ineligible persons remaining on beneficiary lists.

          Conclusion

          The NFSA amendment corrects a genuine per-capita inequity within the AAY category, but the household ceiling built into the new formula shifts the burden onto smaller-household southern States, reviving a federal food-politics conflict rooted in each State’s distinct PDS history. The amendment leaves the parallel problem of ineligible beneficiaries at the State level untouched, meaning one inequity is corrected while another persists. A flat per-household allocation remains a proposed middle path, but the Centre has not formally responded to it.

          PYQ Relevance

          [UPSC 2013] What are the salient features of the National Food Security Act, 2013? How has the Food Security Bill helped in eliminating hunger and malnutrition in India?

          Linkage: The PYQ examines the provisions and effectiveness of the NFSA as a rights-based framework for ensuring food and nutritional security. The proposed shift from a fixed 35 kg entitlement per AAY household to 7 kg per person, capped at 35 kg, enables a critical assessment of whether rationalising foodgrain allocation may weaken existing NFSA entitlements and affect vulnerable households unevenly.